ORDER : VENKATESH NAIK T, J. The petitioner, who is the sole accused, has preferred this criminal revision petition under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ' Cr.P.C .'), challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kundgol, in Criminal Case No.119 of 2016 dated 3-8-2024 and confirmed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, in Criminal Appeal No.5124 of 2024 dated 5-3-2025. 2. The petitioner is the accused and the respondent– State is the complainant before the trial Court. The ranks of the parties before the trial Court are retained for the sake of convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: On 22-12-2015 in the evening hours, when the complainant, the Excise Inspector of Kundgol was on patrolling duty within the limits of Samshi Village, received credible information regarding illegal sale of liquor bottles near Kiran Shop belonging to one Gurunath Koliwada, located on Magadi-Yarebudihal at Hiregunjal Village. Hence, he secured his sub-staff and panchas and proceeded to the intended spot and conducted raid on the petitioner and seized 140 bottles of Old Tavern Whiskey (90 ml each), 96 bottles of Hayward's Cheers (90 ml each), 318 tetra packs of PM Rare Blend of Indian Whisky and Scotch (180 ml each) and 48 tetra packs of Old Tavern Whiskey (180 ml each). Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint, which led to registration of First Information Report and investigation. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined in all three witnesses as PWs.1 to 3, got marked eight documents as per Exs.P1 to 8 and got marked five material objects as per MOs.1 to 5. 5. The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioner for the offences stated supra. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court and in turn, the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings. 8. Heard Sri Sadyojat R. Baligattimath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 9. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings. 8. Heard Sri Sadyojat R. Baligattimath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court in convicting the petitioner is contrary to the findings and settled principles of law. Therefore, the impugned judgments are required to be set aside. Learned counsel further contended that the evidence of PW1, Investigating Officer, discloses that F.I.R. was registered on 22-12-2015 at about 8:30 p.m. However, the search and seizure was conducted between 6:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., on the same day, i.e. before registration of F.I.R., the search and seizure was conducted which is against the settled principles of law. Therefore, the registration of F.I.R. after conducting search and seizure itself is bad in law and the Courts below ought not to have acted upon such F.I.R. He further contended that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court committed error in appreciating the records which are marked as Exs.P1 to 8. Learned counsel further contended that the trial Court has not properly recorded the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C . In the absence of recording of the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C ., it is not appropriate to record the conviction. However, the trial Court recorded the conviction without following the due procedure established under law. Therefore, it is necessary to interfere with the said findings in order to meet the ends of justice. Making such submission, he prays to allow the petition. 10. Per contra, Sri Abhishek Malipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader, justifying the concurrent findings, submits that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and recorded the conviction. He further contended that the Investigating Officer, after receipt of a credible information, went to the spot along with his sub-staff and panchas, conducted raid on the petitioner, seized the items which was being carried by the petitioner without valid licence and therefore, the Investigating Officer could not obtain the permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate, which is required to be obtained as per Section 53 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, 'Act'). Further, the Investigating Officer offered an explanation under which the circumstances could not secure the required permission and said explanation is also marked as Ex.P1-search warrant, which is in consonance with the provisions of Section 54 of the Act. He further contended that the petitioner has neither explained, nor produced any documents to show that he was authorised to possess the seized items in his possession. In the absence of proper documents being produced, registration of case on the basis of the documents was appropriate. The trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court after appreciating the evidence both orally and documentary, recorded the conviction and therefore, interference in the said findings may not be proper. Having submitted thus, he prays to dismiss the petition. 11. After having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is necessary to consider as to whether both the Courts below have properly appreciated the facts and law to arrive at a conclusion regarding conviction. 12. On perusal of the entire material on record, more particularly, Ex.P2-seizure panchanama, under which liquor bottles have been seized, the Investigating Officer has stated that the petitioner possessed these bottles without valid licence. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the search and seizure conducted without registration of F.I.R. in respect of cognizable offence is bad in law. Thus, it is relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 154 and 157 of the Cr.P.C . "154. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the search and seizure conducted without registration of F.I.R. in respect of cognizable offence is bad in law. Thus, it is relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 154 and 157 of the Cr.P.C . "154. Information in cognizable cases.- (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf: [Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB], section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer: Provided further that- (a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB], section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person's choice in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be; (b) the recording of such information shall be videographed; (c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible.] (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (3) Any person, aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence. 157. Procedure for investigation. 157. Procedure for investigation. (1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender: Provided that- a) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot; b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case: [Provided further that in relation to an offence of rape, the recording of statement of the victim shall be conducted at the residence of the victim or in the place of her choice and as far as practicable by a woman police officer in the presence of her parents or guardian or near relatives or social worker of the locality.] (2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the officer in charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements to that sub-section, and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated. 13. On careful perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it appears that the seizure mahazar was conducted on 22-12-2015 between 6:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and F.I.R. was registered on the same day at 8:30 p.m. i.e., after conduct of seizure and raid. 14. 13. On careful perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it appears that the seizure mahazar was conducted on 22-12-2015 between 6:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and F.I.R. was registered on the same day at 8:30 p.m. i.e., after conduct of seizure and raid. 14. Ex.P2-seizure panchanama, being a panchanama, it cannot be termed as a complaint. F.I.R. cannot be registered on the basis of panchanama. However, in the present case, PW1 being the responsible Excise Inspector has registered F.I.R. on the basis of panchanama, which is erroneous and not proper. The trial Court ought not to have acted upon such F.I.R. and cognizance should not have been taken on the strength of the said F.I.R. However, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed error by considering the said F.I.R. as appropriate and proper and recorded the conviction. Such conviction would be rendered as ineffective and the same cannot be termed as non est in law. 15. Section 53 of the Act provides for securing the search warrant from the jurisdictional Magistrate for the purpose of holding search of any place if the Competent Officer has got reason to believe that the intoxicant/contraband articles are kept or concealed in the said places or for arrest of any person whom he has reason to believe had committed the offences mentioned in the said Section. 16. Section 54 of the Act provides for power to search without warrant. 17. From the reading of Section 54 of the Act, it is very clear that in the event, if the Competent Officer has reason to believe that offence punishable under said Section is likely to be committed or is being committed and that a search warrant cannot be obtained without giving an opportunity to the offender to escape, he may after recording the grounds for his belief, proceed to search a place and also arrest the accused found in the said place, whom he has reason to believe to be guilty of such offence as mentioned in such Section. 18. In the present case, admittedly, the requirement of Section 53 of the Act has not been complied with by PW1 before carrying out search and seizure in the intended place and arrest of the accused. 19. Undisputedly, the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses in the present case. 18. In the present case, admittedly, the requirement of Section 53 of the Act has not been complied with by PW1 before carrying out search and seizure in the intended place and arrest of the accused. 19. Undisputedly, the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses in the present case. During the course of search and seizure, the prosecution has not complied with the statutory requirements of Sections 53 and 54 of the Act. 20. In a case where the statutory requirements which is mandatory in nature is not complied with by the prosecution and where the prosecution has failed to give proper reasons for non-examination of independent witnesses and for not securing independent pancha witnesses, it would be highly difficult to place reliance on the prosecution witnesses, who are official witnesses for convicting the petitioner. The trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have failed to appreciate these aspects of the matter and have erred in convicting the petitioner. 21. When the registration of F.I.R. itself is void abinitio, the subsequent proceedings including the judgments are liable to be set aside. Therefore, the interference by the revisional Court in setting aside the concurrent findings is justified. 22. In the light of the observations made above, the Courts proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is allowed ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 3-8-2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kundgol, in Criminal Case No.119 of 2016 which is confirmed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, in Criminal Appeal No.5124 of 2024 dated 5-3-2025 are hereby set aside. iii. The petitioner/accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 . iv. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner/accused shall be refunded to him. v. Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.